Ah yes, of course. How dare people anonymously criticise their government? Everyone speaking against the governing body should be fully identified, for interrogation purpos... err I mean, uuh... what was the question? Hmm... look, a terrorist! He went that way!

"Land of the free" indeed.

Last edited by capi on Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:54 pm; edited 2 times in total

then...have the source as "anonamous"...then you talk to the author and he reveals off the record it came from CuTePiNkBuNnIeS on so-and-so's blog. lol.

Unverified sources have the credibility each of us is willing to assign to them. I would probably not give too much weight to what some "mr. icemanzorg" said on some online place, unless it had some verifiable facts. Or I could actually agree with it myself a priori. If the guy says idiot things, I will just think he is an idiot. If he says something that is logical and makes sense, I might be convinced, if it is verifiable. Doesn't really matter.

A polititian cannot start demanding that people identify themselves for criticising him or the government. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

If China were to say no one can criticise the leader of the country anonymously, everyone would say "damn police state". If the US does it, why the different reaction?

You cannot outlaw "being annoying". Again, I will say: anyone in this thread who disagrees with me is annoying me and causing me distress. I'm calling my lawyer.

I don't believe the media should be able to use anonamous sources, because they could make up their own story, post it anonamously on a blog, then site it in their book, show etc. Ok...you can put "anonamous source" in your book or report, but if I decide to hoist up the BS flag and we go to court, it should be revealeable and a reliable source.

(emphasis mine) Oh, on that much we agree. As long as it is in a legal process, and of course with reasonable justification for the need to reveal the sources in the first place (which will have to be determined by the court).

The problem is the media...because they can site "anonamous" sources, exploit it. They don't have rational judgement when deciding what is true and what isn't...especially when it comes to killing the character of someone they despise.

This is turning into an interesting thread. I just think I should add some comments into the mix here.

cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote:

I think that's messed up for the govt to come in and try to regulate the internet. I mean squashing kiddie porn, monitoring for anti-terrorism efforts, killing spammers etc is cool...but that's borderline stomping on freedom of speech.

This is some dangerous thinking. You agree with regulation of the Internet under certain circumstances, but not others. You don't know which category you fall in, and it could change anytime. You mention that using it to control spammers, kiddie porn and terrorism[1] is good, but not for others uses. However, in my opinion it's all or nothing. Everyone is allowed free speech or no-one is. Quoting from the Freenet FAQ:

Freenet FAQ wrote:

The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting.

After careful thought a couple of years ago this is what I agree with. No-one has the right to stop other peoples freedom of speech. Spammers can be controlled with technical measures, on either end of the chain. I agree that kiddie porn is disgusting, but there is obviously enough demand for it that it exists. I don't think you can solve the problem by regulation of the Internet. They will go back to trading by post, or using a sneakernet. Kiddie porn is a societal problem, not a technical one, so it cannot be solved by technical means.

As for the media and anonymous sources, people should realise that not everything published is correct and true. The media have developed a great sense of skill in manipulating viewers into their way of thinking through methods such as extreme patriotism, doom saying and other such nonsense. c.f. The Four Horsemen of the Modern Apocalypse: terrorists, child pornographers, drug kingpins, and the Mafia.

Wrecking a persons life doesn't have to occur from an anonymous source. If police took you in as a suspect for kiddie porn under some wrong evidence and the media found out then your life would just be as difficult. You might be released by the police, but the media will have published the fact that you were arrested for kiddie porn to millions of people and it will archived digitally on the Internet for probably eternity. It is this reason that I think people should be allowed to speak to the media anonymously. It is the responsibility of the media to check their sources. A free society needs anonymity to function correctly.

Anyway, to make this post on topic, I think that bill is ridiculous and unenforceable.

Cheers
Martin

[1] I personally think the threat of terrorism is the same as it was years ago. Therefore it will not be discussed.

I think someone really needs to draw a line here on the internet. Either it has the freedom of speech, or the US has the freedom of speech.

[... bunch of stuff about the US government and US organizations ...]

I'm sorry, Jon, but where exactly did that "choice" come from, between the worldwide international network of computers which is the Internet and one single nation which is the US? I don't see how the US should be "having" anything here over any other country in particular.

Quote:

Before you're arrested by police for kiddy porn, that all has to run through a court to approve a warrant for arrest after presenting enough evidence. On the internet, there doesn't have to be any evidence to virtually "convict" someone.

The media never needed any evidence to convict anyone, before the Internet or after. All that is needed is the mere mention of a judicial investigation that involves the name of a prominent figure and that person's reputation is forever destroyed, regardless of the outcome of said investigation.

Here in Portugal we've seen that disgusting tactic being used, with excellent results. There was (still is) a huge pedophilia scandal here concerning a state orphanate and the children living there a couple of decades ago. I'm talking scandal as in the whole media talking of nothing else for months. Conveniently enough, nearing the time for government elections, certain reports "leaked" to the press mentioning a very high political leader of one of the center-left parties had been under investigation in the pedophilia case. For weeks the more right-wing television networks pressed the story, assassinated the man's character, every day did they have new revelations fresh out of phone bug transcripts and other police documents which by law should be kept in judicial secrecy (as they were part of an ongoing trial). The man's political career was literally destroyed, he was forced to step down from office, and in the end the police ended up ruling him out as a prime suspect.

No, the problem here aren't anonymous sources. The problem is the media, period. Anonimity is very much something to preserve and to guard with everything we have.

If the US has the freedom of speech, than the internet should be able to be used as a RECONNAISSANCE asset in criminal activity (kiddie porn, terrorism, etc), but not a REGULATED or MONITORED asset.

The US is not an individual, it doesn't have freedom of speech. Well, it shouldn't have but corporations do nowadays due to a twisting of the US constitution. However, I agree with your idea of reconnaissance, but only as far as monitoring their own networks. The difficulty is that Internet reconnaissance can be automated on a large scale extremely easily, a lot easier than for the phone or post system. If you setup some packet sniffers in a few key locations on the Internet you could probably tap 90% of the worlds communication (c.f. Echelon). The routing isn't really that redundant anymore. There are still key routes which most of the traffic goes through. I think this might be one reason why they want to kill peer-2-peer. With peer-2-peer the routes become a lot more varied. You could download something from someone from your own netblock and the traffic would never leave your ISP.

capi wrote:

I'm sorry, Jon, but where exactly did that "choice" come from, between the worldwide international network of computers which is the Internet and one single nation which is the US? I don't see how the US should be "having" anything here over any other country in particular.

I thought that too, but you beat me to the chase. I don't think any government should ``rule'' the Internet, not even a collection of governments. Technology changes too fast for governments to keep up, so they try and stifle technological development so they can control it (peer-2-peer anyone?).

capi wrote:

The media never needed any evidence to convict anyone, before the Internet or after. All that is needed is the mere mention of a judicial investigation that involves the name of a prominent figure and that person's reputation is forever destroyed, regardless of the outcome of said investigation.

My point exactly. Nothing needs to be proved, nothing needs to be certain. Once it's published it's ``out-there'' and people take it as fact.

capi wrote:

No, the problem here aren't anonymous sources. The problem is the media, period. Anonimity is very much something to preserve and to guard with everything we have.

Again, I agree 100%. Anonymity is needed in a free society, but people don't realise that. If you remove the anonymity you cannot speak up against the ruling power without fear of persecution.

I believe the person who made those documents (Bush docs) should be held accountable...by having anonamity...justice will never be served. This act was fraudulant, and piped through some legal loopholes...which was terribly wrong. Remember, critisize = ok, create fraudulant documents = wrong...we're not talking about someone critisizing the gov't here, we're talking about a crime.

cUtEpInKbUnNiEs: You just opened up a whole *nother* can o'worms.

I really don't want to turn this into a political discussion but it's all ready too late. You already Mentioned Lord Bush himself.

We have a process here in this country. It's normally called the law. It was founded on our principles and created by our founding fathers (don't forget the mothers) ... yadda yadda yadda.... which was made into the constitution.

The problem with this whole situation is we have people playing by the rules except the people who make them. They are somehow above the law shall we say.

I'm about to blow this way out of proportion, so buckle up buckaroos!!!!
You take something small such as posting annoying e-mails, blogs etc. which are false and make it a crime??? I'm sorry but isn't that calling the kettle black?

Here comes the "ride" buckaroos....as promised:

Quote:

fraudulant documents = wrong

What about intel on 9/11? What about our boys... future generations and leaders wiped out. May I pose the question what constitutes documents? From what I am reading it sounds like News *may* constitute as documents. There have been reports put out by the Pentagon through the AP that they do indeed create false news stories as well. Is this wrong? Who can be held accountable for this? In addition... I think the law makers better come up with the TRILLIONS... yes that is right TRILLIONS missing in OUR (I.E. Tax payers) money before they worry about someone defaming our PUBLIC SERVANT, King George.

This is just another Fabian Socialistic movement to silence critics and control speech, plain and simple.

The BIG BUT here is that you are right, defaming someone is not an ethical thing to do just for it's sake. That is where our discerning mind comes into play, right? Sorting through the crappadookie, lies and disinformation? Right?

Okay Buckaroos... it's the end of the ride now. Here's something to chew on though. Is it American to make so many laws that it's almost impossible not to break one? Are we really all criminals? I think accountability starts from the top down..... and that's the rest of the story.

P.S. The Dems and Reps are just different tenticles of the same monster. Think about it.

Ok friends, I'd just like to ask everyone to please remember to keep things friendly and civil as they currently are, all right?

Don't get me wrong, absolutely no one has been less than friendly and civil here, there's nothing wrong in this thread. I'm just being preemptive, since we are starting to wonder into the realm of political discussion.

Discussing different ideas can be very interesting and stimulating, as long as we all remember to keep things cordial and to the plane of ideas, and continue to respect diferring opinions, as you have all done so far.

In any case, My friend, I was merely attempting to elaborate on the slippery slope we are on.

Quote:

If that was really true BBC, Fox, CNN, CBS etc would be all over it in a heartbeat. As was mentioned earlier, its about sorting through the filth.

This is simply not a true statement. It has been known for years that a handful of companies own the media and various media outlets. What we see is filtered, controlled and monitored. Something may get initially reported but often true stories w/ substance often get brushed over in the nat'l media. I would be more than happy to carry on this discussion on privately, however, some of my sentiments would be better reflected if you happened to watch the documentary "Outfoxed". While I disagree with some of the reporting done in the movie, the premise is the same and it doesn't only apply to the FOX news outlet.

Quote:

I was speaking of criminal activity through the internet and when the government siezes it through hacking etc its somehow not admissable. I was talking about using the internet as a resource for reconnaissance rather than trying to restrict it, govern it, or do such to its users.

This law is essentially geared towards doing so. I would like to add that some of this stuff really makes me sick. For example, a law can be passed for lets say Veterans Benefits. In page 2000 paragraph 2 sub-paragraph 8, line 3 it could read something like this:

Biopharmaceutical companies shall bear no responsibilities or liabilities for any bodily harm done due to a vaccination shot

What does that have to do with the proposed bill? Nothing. It's all about money and sneaking in things like this is worrisome. If it's done overtly w/ bills such as this one... or covertly like the one I glossed over there it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.

i can't really add much, but i agree with all the "this bill is junk" and "the general population is sheep to the media"

i've talked to some people who's voice alone annoys me...should the be forced to stop speaking? probably not, they can't help it, they can't really change their voice, but it annoys me none the less. some people simply don't know how to behave properly, they were never taught not to be annoying.

*starts being annoying to taunt the Americans, knowing that they can't be annoying back*

Interestingly, I've read the same news via Bruce Schneiers' blog -- he quotes a BoingBoing article where an anonymous lawyer stated the following, which I couldn't keep from this thread.

http://www.schneier.com/blog wrote:

EDITED TO ADD (1/9) Some commenters to BoingBoing clarify the legal issues. This is from an anonymous attorney:

The anonymous harassment provision ( Link ) is the old telephone-annoyance statute that has been on the books for decades. It was updated in the widely (and in many respects deservedly) ridiculed Communications Decency Act to include new technologies, and the cases make clear its applicability to Internet communications. See, e.g., ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824, 829 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (text here), aff'd, 521 U.S. 824 (1997). Unlike the indecency provisions of the CDA, this scope update was not invalidated in the courts and remains fully effective.

In other words, the latest amendment, which supposedly adds Internet communications devices to the scope of the law, is meaningless surplusage.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Featured Links*

Looking for more Windows Networking info?

Sign up to the WindowsNetworking.com Monthly Newsletter, written by Enterprise Security MVP Deb Shinder, containing news, the hottest tips, Networking links of the month and much more. Subscribe today and don't miss a thing!View a sample newsletter.